I'm writing a rendering app that communicates with an image processor as a sort of virtual camera, and I'm trying to figure out the fastest way to write the texture data from one process to the awaiting image buffer in the other.
Theoretically I think it should be possible with 1 DirectX copy from VRAM directly to the area of memory I want it in, but I can't figure out how to specify a region of memory for a texture to occupy, and thus must perform an additional memcpy. DX9 or DX11 solutions would be welcome.
So far, the docs here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb174363(v=vs.85).aspx have held the most promise.
"In Windows Vista CreateTexture can create a texture from a system memory pointer allowing the application more flexibility over the use, allocation and deletion of the system memory"
I'm running on Windows 7 with the June 2010 Directx SDK, However, whenever I try and use the function in the way it specifies, I the function fails with an invalid arguments error code. Here is the call I tried as a test:
static char s_TextureBuffer[640*480*4]; //larger than needed
void* p = (void*)s_TextureBuffer;
HRESULT res = g_D3D9Device->CreateTexture(640,480,1,0, D3DFORMAT::D3DFMT_L8, D3DPOOL::D3DPOOL_SYSTEMMEM, &g_ReadTexture, (void**)p);
I tried with several different texture formats, but with no luck. I've begun looking into DX11 solutions, it's going slowly since I'm used to DX9. Thanks!
Related
I'm using append/consume buffers to reduce shading work in my path-tracer (immediately shade empty space + emitters in a pre-pass, append the remaining pixels for full processing), and I've heard that I should be using a UAV when I'm accessing through AppendStructuredBuffer<T> and an SRV when I'm accessing through ConsumeStructuredBuffer. I haven't seen that claim in any of Microsoft's documentation, but it might explain why my calls to [Consume()] are returning empty data - is it accurate?
I should have tested myself before I asked - shaders with ConsumeStructuredBuffers declared in SRV registers (tN) fail to compile and emit an error saying they're only bindable through UAVs.
My AppendStructuredBuffer bound through the UAV registers works fine, so it seems like I was just quoting hearsay; unordered-access-views should be used for both HLSL types.
I'm having troubles with OpenCL-GL shared memory.
I have a application that's working in both linux and windows. The CL-GL sharing works in linux, but not in windows.
The windows driver says that it supports sharing, the examples from AMD work so it should work. My code for creating the context in windows is:
cl_context_properties properties[] = {
CL_CONTEXT_PLATFORM, (cl_context_properties)platform_(),
CL_WGL_HDC_KHR, (intptr_t) wglGetCurrentDC(),
CL_GL_CONTEXT_KHR, (intptr_t) wglGetCurrentContext(),
0
};
platform_.getDevices(CL_DEVICE_TYPE_GPU, &devices_);
context_ = cl::Context(devices_, properties, &CL::cl_error_callback, nullptr, &err);
err = clGetGLContextInfoKHR(properties, CL_CURRENT_DEVICE_FOR_GL_CONTEXT_KHR, sizeof(device_id), &device_id, NULL);
context_device_ = cl::Device(device_id);
queue_ = cl::CommandQueue(context_, context_device_, 0, &err);
My problem is that the CL and GL memory in a shared buffer is not the same. I print them out (by memory mapping) and I notice that they differ. Changing the data in the memory works in both CL and GL, but only changes that memory, not both (that is both buffers seems intact, but not shared).
Also, clGetGLObjectInfo on the cl-buffer returns the correct gl buffer.
Update: I have found that if I create the opencl-context on the cpu it works. This seems weird, as I'm not using integrated graphics, and I don't belive the cpu is handling opengl. I'm using SDL to create the window, could that have something to do with this?
I have now confirmed that the opengl context is running on the gpu, so the problem lies elsewhere.
Update 2: Ok, so this is weird. I tried again today, and suddenly it works. As far as I know I didn't install any new drivers before I shut down the computer yesterday, so I don't know what could have brought this about.
Update 3: Right, I noticed that changing the number of particles caused this to work. When I allocated so many particles that the shared buffer is slightly above one MB it suddenly starts to work.
I solved the problem.
OpenGL buffer object must be created "after" OpenCL context was created.
If "before", we can't share the OpenGL data.
I use RadeonHD5670 ATI Catalyst 12.10
Maybe, ATI driver's problem because Nvidia-Computing-SDK samples don't depend on the order.
We have an older massive C++ application and we have been converting it to support Unicode as well as 64-bits. The following strange thing has been happening:
Calls to registry functions and windows creation functions, like the following, have been failing:
hWnd = CreateSysWindowExW( ExStyle, ClassNameW.StringW(), Label2.StringW(), Style,
Posn.X(), Posn.Y(),
Size.X(), Size.Y(),
hParentWnd, (HMENU)Id,
AppInstance(), NULL);
ClassNameW and Label2 are instances of our own Text class which essentially uses malloc to allocate the memory used to store the string.
Anyway, when the functions fail, and I call GetLastError it returns the error code for "invalid memory access" (though I can inspect and see the string arguments fine in the debugger). Yet if I change the code as follows then it works perfectly fine:
BSTR Label2S = SysAllocString(Label2.StringW());
BSTR ClassNameWS = SysAllocString(ClassNameW.StringW());
hWnd = CreateSysWindowExW( ExStyle, ClassNameWS, Label2S, Style,
Posn.X(), Posn.Y(),
Size.X(), Size.Y(),
hParentWnd, (HMENU)Id,
AppInstance(), NULL);
SysFreeString(ClassNameWS); ClassNameWS = 0;
SysFreeString(Label2S); Label2S = 0;
So what gives? Why would the original functions work fine with the arguments in local memory, but when used with Unicode, the registry function require SysAllocString, and when used in 64-bit, the Windows creation functions also require SysAllocString'd string arguments? Our Windows procedure functions have all been converted to be Unicode, always, and yes we use SetWindowLogW call the correct default Unicode DefWindowProcW etc. That all seems to work fine and handles and draws Unicode properly etc.
The documentation at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms632679%28v=vs.85%29.aspx does not say anything about this. While our application is massive we do use debug heaps and tools like Purify to check for and clean up any memory corruption. Also at the time of this failure, there is still only one main system thread. So it is not a thread issue.
So what is going on? I have read that if string arguments are marshalled anywhere or passed across process boundaries, then you have to use SysAllocString/BSTR, yet we call lots of API functions and there is lots of code out there which calls these functions just using plain local strings?
What am I missing? I have tried Googling this, as someone else must have run into this, but with little luck.
Edit 1: Our StringW function does not create any temporary objects which might go out of scope before the actual API call. The function is as follows:
Class Text {
const wchar_t* StringW () const
{
return TextStartW;
}
wchar_t* TextStartW; // pointer to current start of text in DataArea
I have been running our application with the debug heap and memory checking and other diagnostic tools, and found no source of memory corruption, and looking at the assembly, there is no sign of temporary objects or invalid memory access.
BUT I finally figured it out:
We compile our code /Zp1, which means byte aligned memory allocations. SysAllocString (in 64-bits) always return a pointer that is aligned on a 8 byte boundary. Presumably a 32-bit ANSI C++ application goes through an API layer to the underlying Unicode windows DLLs, which would also align the pointer for you.
But if you use Unicode, you do not get that incidental pointer alignment that the conversion mapping layer gives you, and if you use 64-bits, of course the situation will get even worse.
I added a method to our Text class which shifts the string pointer so that it is aligned on an eight byte boundary, and viola, everything runs fine!!!
Of course the Microsoft people say it must be memory corruption and I am jumping the wrong conclusion, but there is evidence it is not the case.
Also, if you use /Zp1 and include windows.h in a 64-bit application, the debugger will tell you sizeof(BITMAP)==28, but calling GetObject on a bitmap will fail and tell you it needs a 32-byte structure. So I suspect that some of Microsoft's API is inherently dependent on aligned pointers, and I also know that some optimized assembly (I have seen some from Fortran compilers) takes advantage of that and crashes badly if you ever give it unaligned pointers.
So the moral of all of this is, dont use "funky" compiler arguments like /Zp1. In our case we have to for historical reasons, but the number of times this has bitten us...
Someone please give me a "this is useful" tick on my answer please?
Using a bit of psychic debugging, I'm going to guess that the strings in your application are pooled in a read-only section.
It's possible that the CreateSysWindowsEx is attempting to write to the memory passed in for the window class or title. That would explain why the calls work when allocated on the heap (SysAllocString) but not when used as constants.
The easiest way to investigate this is to use a low level debugger like windbg - it should break into the debugger at the point where the access violation occurs which should help figure out the problem. Don't use Visual Studio, it has a nasty habit of being helpful and hiding first chance exceptions.
Another thing to try is to enable appverifier on your application - it's possible that it may show something.
Calling a Windows API function does not cross the process boundary, since the various Windows DLLs are loaded into your process.
It sounds like whatever pointer that StringW() is returning isn't valid when Windows is trying to access it. I would look there - is it possible that the pointer returned it out of scope and deleted shortly after it is called?
If you share some more details about your string class, that could help diagnose the problem here.
I'm having trouble understanding how to port glReadBuffer() & glDrawBuffer() calls into Open GL ES 1.1. Various forum posts on the internet just say "use VBOs," without going into more depth.
Can you please help me understand an appropriate conversion? Say I have:
glReadBuffer(GL_FRONT);
followed by
glDrawBuffer(GL_BACK_LEFT);
state->paint(state_id, f);
How can I write the pixels out?
glReadBuffer and glDrawBuffer just set the source and target for subsequent drawing operations. Assuming you're targeting a monoscopic device, such as the iPhone or an Android device, and have requested two buffers then you're already set for drawing to the back buffer. The only means of reading the colour buffer in GL ES is glReadPixels, which will read from the same buffer that you're drawing to.
All of these are completely unrelated to VBOs, which pass off management of arrays of data to the driver, often implicitly allowing them to be put into the GPU's direct address space.
I want to get the adpater RAM or graphics RAM which you can see in Display settings or Device manager using API. I am in C++ application.
I have tried seraching on net and as per my RnD I have come to conclusion that we can get the graphics memory info from
1. DirectX SDK structure called DXGI_ADAPTER_DESC. But what if I dont want to use DirectX API.
2. Win32_videocontroller : But this class does not always give you adapterRAM info if availability of video controller is offline. I have checked it on vista.
Is there any other way to get the graphics RAM?
There is NO way to directly get graphics RAM on windows, windows prevents you doing this as it maintains control over what is displayed.
You CAN, however, create a DirectX device. Get the back buffer surface and then lock it. After locking you can fill it with whatever you want and then unlock and call present. This is slow, though, as you have to copy the video memory back across the bus into main memory. Some cards also use "swizzled" formats that it has to un-swizzle as it copies. This adds further time to doing it and some cards will even ban you from doing it.
In general you want to avoid directly accessing the video card and letting windows/DirectX do the drawing for you. Under D3D1x Im' pretty sure you can do it via an IDXGIOutput though. It really is something to try and avoid though ...
You can write to a linear array via standard win32 (This example assumes C) but its quite involved.
First you need the linear array.
unsigned int* pBits = malloc( width * height );
Then you need to create a bitmap and select it to the DC.
HBITMAP hBitmap = ::CreateBitmap( width, height, 1, 32, NULL );
SelectObject( hDC, (HGDIOBJ)hBitmap );
You can then fill the pBits array as you please. When you've finished you can then set the bitmap's bits.
::SetBitmapBits( hBitmap, width * height * 4, (void*)pBits )
When you've finished using your bitmap don't forget to delete it (Using DeleteObject) AND free your linear array!
Edit: There is only one way to reliably get the video ram and that is to go through the DX Diag interfaces. Have a look at IDxDiagProvider and IDxDiagContainer in the DX SDK.
Win32_videocontroller is your best course to get the amount of gfx memory. That's how its done in Doom3 source.
You say "..availability of video controller is offline. I have checked it on vista." Under what circumstances would the video controller be offline?
Incidentally, you can find the Doom3 source here. The function you're looking for is called Sys_GetVideoRam and it's in a file called win_shared.cpp, although if you do a solution wide search it'll turn it up for you.
User mode threads cannot access memory regions and I/O mapped from hardware devices, including the framebuffer. Anyway, what you would want to do that? Suppose the case you can access the framebuffer directly: now you must handle a LOT of possible pixel formats in the framebuffer. You can assume a 32-bit RGBA or ARGB organization. There is the possibility of 15/16/24-bit displays (RGBA555, RGBA5551, RGBA4444, RGBA565, RGBA888...). That's if you don't want to also support the video-surface formats (overlays) such as YUV-based.
So let the display driver and/or the subjacent APIs to do that effort.
If you want to write to a display surface (which not equals exactly to framebuffer memory, altough it's conceptually almost the same) there are a lot of options. DX, Win32, or you may try the SDL library (libsdl).